I write both as a long-time citizen of VA (Arlington since 1960), where I
currently conduct an information management and technology consulting
business www.rbarry.com, and as the Mid-Atlantic Director (NY to WV) of the
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org, a national,
non-profit, public interest organization that addresses societal
benefits/risks resulting from the use of computers, financed principally by
individual member dues. I would like to share some serious concerns, from
both consumer and business perspectives, about the Uniform Computer
Information Transaction Act, better known as "UCITA". It was approved by
NCCUSL in 1999 following a highly contentious drafting process that resulted
in the American Law Institute removing itself from the process for the first
time in 50 years. Like the companion Uniform Electronic Transaction Act,
which also has consumer issues, UCITA is being promoted in all states with
the noble purpose of unifying e-commerce legislation. However, as the model
was drafted to please elements of the software industry, it has provisions
that are inimical to consumers and business users as well as to some parts of
the software industry itself, particularly small developers.

Among those who have submitted letters registering opposition to UCITA or
stating serious concerns from the consumer perspective are: 24 State
Attorneys General; Federal Trade Commission senior staff; Consumer Federation
of America; Consumers Union; Consumer Project on Technology; U.S. Public
Interest Research Group; 45 professors of contracts and commercial law (also
stating objections from the perspective of business customers); Members of
the Working Group on Consumer Protection of the American Bar Association
(Business Law Section, Committee on the Law of Cyberspace, Subcommittee on
Electronic Commerce) and many (non-software) businesses who rely upon
software products, including I understand, Reynolds. No group that takes the
consumer perspective has endorsed UCITA.

Space requires that I only list 10 main reasons to be concerned about UCITA.
My purpose is to give you enough questions that need to be addressed to
consider putting some brakes on the legislative process until you have a true
understanding of what you would be buying for your citizen and business
constituents before UCITA becomes law; and to warn those of you who may be
unaware that there appears to be a competition between MD and VA to be the
first state in the country to pass this legislation, partly on the rather
high-schoolish belief that the "winner" will attract more technology firms.
For reasons better known to its promoters, UCITA is mistakenly being put
forth as consumer-oriented legislation. It is not.

UCITA would:

redefine most software sales as licensing agreements, giving software
makers the power to set terms forbidding the future sale or even donation
of the material.

establish the egregious 'agreement to accept electronic notice': e-mail
could serve as formal legal notice of changes in contract terms, service
cut-off warnings, etc., without evidence it reached the individual.

consider disclosure "conspicuous" even if buried in boilerplate license
text or on enclosed leaflets in shrink-wrapped boxes and before consumers
open them.

allocate significant risks to consumers in the event of unauthorized
transactions.

expand powers of contracts to limit rights of fair use (contract terms
barring quotation, criticism, reverse engineering to fix bugs or build new
interoperable products) including permitting software makers to block the
publishing of reviews of their product."We already see software licenses that
purport to ban publication of critical articles," states University of
Arizona law professor Jean Braucher. "UCITA would increase this chill."

permit vendors to enter one's computer and render software useless.

grant licensors the right to invade personal and business
privacy/confidentiality by collecting data from use of their software,
including possibly privileged legal/medical information.

provide for no incidental/consequential damages, even with known defects;

through nondisclosure clauses in software packages permit software makers
to
block the publishing of reviews of their product.

validate post-transaction terms, on grounds of their use in other
industries (airlines, insurance). But those are regulated industries,
subject to international treaties or state insurance commission review.

I encourage you to read the LATimes article, Friday, February 4, 2000,
"Makers Aim to Dilute Consumer Rights: Technology: Companies push legislation
at state level that would dramatically alter contract law in their favor". I would urge
you to read the more comprehensive analysis of UCITA, by Jean Braucher, Roger
Henderson Professor of Law, Univ. of Ariz in the process of being posted at
http://www.cpsr.org/program/UCITA/braucher.html. Please share this
information.